Abbot) StaR, you run to another thread without answering how it is a
government you claim is unreal and nonresistant can make statutory and
case law which turn around cite as real? You talk about the “legal
profession", but anyone so dense as not to recognize a painfully
contradictory argument like yours couldn’t pass the bar exam much less
get into law school.

Advertisements

Abbot) StaR, you run to another thread without answering how it is a
government you claim is unreal and nonresistant can make statutory and
case law which turn around cite as real? You talk about the “legal
profession", but anyone so dense as not to recognize a painfully
contradictory argument like yours couldn’t pass the bar exam much less
get into law school.

Click to expand...

Bwahahahaha "the bar", an infestation of parasites who are nothing
but lying pieces of shit!! No thanks.

"The United States was never a corporation..."."Assuming Canada is a
corporation, which is not admitted by me..." - Mr. Stephen G. Jenuth
from HO MacNEIL JENUTH Barristers & Solicitors

"Corporations are also of all grades, and made for varied objects; all
governments are corporations, created by usage and common consent, or
grants and charters which create a body politic for prescribed
purposes; but whether they are private, local or general, in their
objects, for the enjoyment of property, or the exercise of power, they
are all governed by the same rules of law, as to the construction and
the obligation of the instrument by which the incorporation is made."

"The federal government itself is but a corporation, created by the
grant or charter of the separate states;"
----------
A LAW DICTIONARY

ADAPTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION

by John Bouvier

CORPORATIONS

5. The United States of America are a corporation endowed with the
capacity to sue and be sued, to convey and receive property. 1 Marsh.
Dec. 177, 181. But it is proper to observe that no suit can be brought
against the United States without authority of law.

6. Nations or states, are denominated by publicists, bodies politic,
and are said to have their affairs and interests, and to deliberate
and resolve, in common. They thus become as moral persons, having an
understanding and will peculiar to themselves, and are susceptible of
obligations and laws. Vattel, 49. In this extensive sense the United
States may be termed a corporation; and so may each state singly. Per
Iredell, J. 3 Dall. 447.
----------
U.S. Supreme Court
CHISHOLM v. STATE OF GA., 2 U.S. 419 (1793)

"The only law concerning corporations, to which I conceive the least
reference is to be had, is the common law of England on that subject.
I need not repeat the observations I made in respect to the operation
of that law in this country. The word 'corporations,' in its largest
sense, has a more extensive meaning than people generally are aware
of. Any body politic (sole or aggregate) whether its power be
restricted or transcendant, is in this sense 'a corporation.' The
King, accordingly, in England is called a corporation. 10 Co. 29. b.
So also, by a very respectable author (Sheppard, in his abridgement,
1Vol. 431.) is the Parliament itself. In this extensive sense, not
only each State singly, but even the United States may without
impropriety be termed "corporations."

"As to corporations, all States whatever are corporations or bodies
politic. The only question is, what are their powers? As to individual
States and the United States, the Constitution marks the boundary of
powers.""
----------

Abbot) StaR, you can post all you want but it won’t change the fact
that the logical fallacy of the argument by ridicule, which you are
using, is not a valid argument and it doesn’t befit one, such as you,
who claims to be so smart. It should be clear to even the most casual
reader that you can’t defend or even explain a theory you have been
working on for more than a decade!

You aren’t honest about your argument, and I believe you can't be
honest about your own motivation. I believe you have concocted your
hopelessly contradictory and inane argument not out of a search for
truth, but simply because you are emotionally unable to accept the
lawful authority of democratic governments.

You want us to believe that governments gathered together by the
people don’t exist, not because you have discovered a truth, but
rather because you are little more than an emotional child trapped in
a gimpy 47 year old's body. I believe that when we get down to it you
are not much more than a 3 three old railing against the rules of the
adult world.

The U.S. Constitution is not a fantasy. If it were unreal you won't be
able to (mis)quote case law based on it!

No, the fantasy is your belief that you are a real scholar. The
fantasy is your belief that you are a complete, intact and mature
adult.

Abbot) StaR, you can post all you want but it won’t change the fact
that the logical fallacy of the argument by ridicule, which you are
using, is not a valid argument and it doesn’t befit one, such as you,
who claims to be so smart. It should be clear to even the most casual
reader that you can’t defend or even explain a theory you have been
working on for more than a decade!

You aren’t honest about your argument, and I believe you can't be
honest about your own motivation. I believe you have concocted your
hopelessly contradictory and inane argument not out of a search for
truth, but simply because you are emotionally unable to accept the
lawful authority of democratic governments.

You want us to believe that governments gathered together by the
people don’t exist, not because you have discovered a truth, but
rather because you are little more than an emotional child trapped in
a gimpy 47 year old's body. I believe that when we get down to it you
are not much more than a 3 three old railing against the rules of the
adult world.

The U.S. Constitution is not a fantasy. If it were unreal you won't be
able to (mis)quote case law based on it!

No, the fantasy is your belief that you are a real scholar. The
fantasy is your belief that you are a complete, intact and mature
adult.

I pity, you son.

Click to expand...

And so a state, a corporation, is an artificial person when brought
within the scope of the law (municipal law).

The United States is a juristic person in the sense that it has
capacity to sue upon contracts made with it or in vindication of its
property rights.

....

Since, in common usage, the term 'person' does not include the
sovereign, statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to
exclude it. 5 But there is no hard and fast rule of exclusion. The
purpose, the subject matter, the context, the legislative history, and
the executive interpretation of the statute are aids to construction
which may indicate an intent, by the use of the term, to bring state
or nation within the scope of the law.
----------

Now the questions are... why can`t this juristic "person" (state) have
a "bodily presence in any place"? Why is it that this "person" (state)
can only act through agents? Why is this "person" (state) unable to
have oral discourse and therefore can only command by laws?

While it cannot be said that the United States, in its corporate
capacity as an artificial person, has a bodily presence in any place,
it is not unreasonable to hold that in the eye of the law it has a
residence, and especially so when a contrary holding would defeat the
evident purpose of a statute.
----------
POINDEXTER v. GREENHOW, 114 U.S. 270 (1885)http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=114&page=270

"The state is a political corporate body, can act only through agents,
and can command only by laws."
----------

Poor simpleton, unable to grasp the concept of what an actor is and
what it is he does.

Find the answers here folks!!!

The Lex Quadruplatorwww.lexquadruplator.com

The Corporate Lie

Click to expand...

Abbot 2) So what are you saying now? That actors in a fantasy play
make binding case law? Or is the problem that you don't have a
straightforward answer and hope that the wannabe detaxers you are
trying to dupe will believe you have brilliant answer at your website
which you are just too busy to reference.

The plain fact is for years you have been telling us that "actors"
aren't real either, StaR.

Abbot 2) So what are you saying now? That actors in a fantasy play
make binding case law? Or is the problem that you don't have a
straightforward answer and hope that the wannabe detaxers you are
trying to dupe will believe you have brilliant answer at your website
which you are just too busy to reference.

The plain fact is for years you have been telling us that "actors"
aren't real either, StaR.

So the real question is when are you going to start making sense?

Click to expand...

Well there you have it folks. Abbot the Retard is just a ranting old
fool.

----------
Blueberry River Indian Band v. Canada (Department of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development) (C.A.)

....The starting point for any discussion of the legal responsibility
of governmental actors is (or, at least was, until 1982) the
constitutional premise that the Sovereign is the source and fountain
of justice and that all jurisdiction is derived from her.

....All executive acts are done in her name or are done by Ministers of
the Crown acting under statutory powers conferred upon them.
----------

Governmental ACTORS

Readers, the men and women who are ACTING are real enough. The words
that they type or write (that I use) are real enough. The "role" or
"part" that they ACT OUT such as a "minister" or "judge" however are
fictitious, just ask any actor. The concept of an INVISIBLE IMMORTAL
ARTIFICIAL FORMLESS "being" or "entity" that they endorse is... well a
concept. It is PURE fiction as you and I know that there's no such
thing as an INVISIBLE IMMORTAL ARTIFICIAL FORMLESS "being" or
"entity". In fact, this INVISIBLE IMMORTAL ARTIFICIAL FORMLESS "being"
or "entity" can ONLY "act" and be "seen" through the ACTS of the
ACTORS who administer its affairs. Now if that doesn't show you the
fictitious nature of the ENTITY then I don't know what will.

END QUOTE

LMAO

Come see what this lying piece of shit is soooooooooooooo desperately
trying to hide from you!!!!

----------
Blueberry River Indian Band v. Canada (Department of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development) (C.A.)

...The starting point for any discussion of the legal responsibility
of governmental actors is (or, at least was, until 1982) the
constitutional premise that the Sovereign is the source and fountain
of justice and that all jurisdiction is derived from her.

...All executive acts are done in her name or are done by Ministers of
the Crown acting under statutory powers conferred upon them.
----------

Governmental ACTORS

Readers, the men and women who are ACTING are real enough. The words
that they type or write (that I use) are real enough. The "role" or
"part" that they ACT OUT such as a "minister" or "judge" however are
fictitious, just ask any actor. The concept of an INVISIBLE IMMORTAL
ARTIFICIAL FORMLESS "being" or "entity" that they endorse is... well a
concept. It is PURE fiction as you and I know that there's no such
thing as an INVISIBLE IMMORTAL ARTIFICIAL FORMLESS "being" or
"entity". In fact, this INVISIBLE IMMORTAL ARTIFICIAL FORMLESS "being"
or "entity" can ONLY "act" and be "seen" through the ACTS of the
ACTORS who administer its affairs. Now if that doesn't show you the
fictitious nature of the ENTITY then I don't know what will.

END QUOTE

LMAO

Come see what this lying piece of shit is soooooooooooooo desperately
trying to hide from you!!!!

The Lex Quadruplatorwww.lexquadruplator.com

The Corporate Lie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Click to expand...

Abbot) StaR, your answer has no relation to the question. You don't
seem to realize that your posts and the case law you mangle shows us
that the courts have real authority!

You don't know what you are saying. The societal source of justice
and jurisdiction is defined in your post and yet you say so such
authority exists outside your idea of God.

"Corporations are also of all grades, and made for varied objects; all
governments are corporations, created by usage and common consent, or
grants and charters which create a body politic for prescribed
purposes; but whether they are private, local or general, in their
objects, for the enjoyment of property, or the exercise of power, they
are all governed by the same rules of law, as to the construction and
the obligation of the instrument by which the incorporation is made."

"The federal government itself is but a corporation, created by the
grant or charter of the separate states;"
----------

And of course you denied that a corporation of ANY SORT was made
showing the readers just what a clueless IDIOT you are.

----------
"Nor do they form a corporation... they form a nation." - Quantrell
(aka Abbot aka Austin Rayder)

"Hence I repeat we, the people, form a nation, not a corporation..." -
Quantrell (aka Abbot aka Austin Rayder)

"The fact is Canada is not a corporation and you have never proven
that it is, except to give us interpretations of cases you can't
understand, and don't site properly." - Raider (aka Abbot)

"The Union of States was created by the U.S. Constitution and is not a
corporation." - Raider (aka Abbot)

"One need only to read the preamble to the Constitution to see that
the Framers were not creating either a public or private corporation.
They were creating "a more prefect union"." - Quantrell (aka Abbot aka
Austin Rayder)
----------

In the
case of the U.S. Constitution it is supreme law.

Click to expand...

"they are all governed by the same rules of law, as to the
construction and the obligation of the instrument by which the
incorporation is made."

As stated earlier, constitutions are charters of corporate powers,
nothing more, nothing less. It tells them what they can do and what
they can't do, nothing more, nothing less.They are not permitted to
act outside the terms of their constitution - such acts are deemed
"ultra vires" (beyond the power).

The "instrument by which the incorporation is made" (constitution) is
supreme law for the corporate entities ONLY, the federal corporation
and the granting states (corporations).

That alone makes it
more that "a fiction".

Click to expand...

LMAO you are such an IDIOT!!!!!!!!!

It is the "separate legal entity having its own rights, privileges,
and liabilities distinct from those of its members" that is PURE
FICTION!!!

----------
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition

cor-po-ra-tion

1. A body that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal
entity having its own rights, privileges, and liabilities distinct
from those of its members.

2. Such a body created for purposes of government. Also called body
corporate.
----------
37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

Tuesday, May 28, 2002

Professor Patrick Healy, professor of law at McGill University

" Well, your question goes directly to the heart of the issue. A
corporation is a fiction, by definition, and any attempt to construct
a model of criminal liability for a fiction will involve further
fictions. The question you ask is, where is the limit of the just
imposition of responsibility on these fictitious entities?.."
----------
Lennard's Carrying Co Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co Ltd 1915 AC 705

A corporation is a "fiction" as it has no separate existence, no
physical body and no "mind".
----------

In fact a corporation shares a common trait with you...IT HAS NO
MIND. LMFAO

The fact that one can read it, that one can quote it, that it empowers
government with limited authority and that the Court settles disputes
as to matters regarding constitutional law makes it very real.

----------
Blueberry River Indian Band v. Canada (Department of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development) (C.A.)

....The starting point for any discussion of the legal responsibility
of governmental actors is (or, at least was, until 1982) the
constitutional premise that the Sovereign is the source and fountain
of justice and that all jurisdiction is derived from her.

....All executive acts are done in her name or are done by Ministers of
the Crown acting under statutory powers conferred upon them.
----------

Governmental ACTORS

Readers, the men and women who are ACTING are real enough. The words
that they type or write (that I use) are real enough. The "role" or
"part" that they ACT OUT such as a "minister" or "judge" however are
fictitious, just ask any actor. The concept of an INVISIBLE IMMORTAL
ARTIFICIAL FORMLESS "being" or "entity" that they endorse is... well a
concept. It is PURE fiction as you and I know that there's no such
thing as an INVISIBLE IMMORTAL ARTIFICIAL FORMLESS "being" or
"entity". In fact, this INVISIBLE IMMORTAL ARTIFICIAL FORMLESS "being"
or "entity" can ONLY "act" and be "seen" through the ACTS of the
ACTORS who administer its affairs. Now if that doesn't show you the
fictitious nature of the ENTITY then I don't know what will.

END QUOTE

The ACTORS and the PROPS (constitution - piece of paper outlining a
concept) they use are real but the corporate entity is pure FICTION
which is why IT can ONLY act and be seen in the ACTS of those (actors)
who administer its affairs.

"Nations, or States, are denominated by publicists bodies politic; and
are said to have their affairs and interests, and to deliberate and
resolve in common. They thus become as moral persons, having an
understanding and will peculiar to themselves, and are susceptible of
obligations and laws. In this extensive sense, the United States may
be termed a corporation; they are a collective invisible body, which
can act and be seen only in the acts of those who administer the
affairs of the government . . .. It may be so said of each State
singly. So the
king of England is a corporation; and so is parliament."
----------

Hells bells, son, even you (mis)quote constitutional case law. . .then
you tell us the document is not real!

Click to expand...

The document is real idiot, it is the corporate entity that it creates
that is FICTION!!!

You are a contradictory mess, sonny!

Click to expand...

Bwahahahahahaha and you just showed everyone what a complete IDIOT you
are you old fool.

LMAO

Come see what this lying piece of shit is soooooooooooooo desperately
trying to hide from you!!!!

Abbot 2) StaR, your disjointed posts are contradictory and self
defeating. You seem unable to make inferences in your argument. . .
what a layman would call “connecting the dots“. Hence your argument
wanders aimlessly around the NG. It is no wonder that you apologize
for your “choppy writing style” at your website.

After being asked several times how it can be that a non existent
court can make binding case law for you to use in your argument you
eventually realize your contradiction and start babbling about
“actors” in the court who you unwittingly say aren’t real either.

So you are in the same hole you were to start with.

Then in a stunning bit of mindless posting you destroy your own
argument by posting Blueberry River Indian Band v. Canada which
plainly describes the very real “source and fountain of justice
and. . .jurisdiction” in Canada and when read in full explains the
authority given judges, court officers and government officials.

Realizing you have backed yourself in a corner yet again you start
making up law and in a panic shout in all caps that these court
officers and government officials are actors playing out “formless
roles”.

Mind you, this is shouted just after having quoted the case law that
describes the real and tangible jurisdiction of the courts and its
officers!

You are a hopeless case, boy.

My suggestion to you, StaR, is that you enroll in a basic logic course
at the local community college (you’re on welfare, you can get it paid
for, eh?) and then have a competent adult read your posts before you
put them on this NG or your website.

Abbot 2) StaR, your disjointed posts are contradictory and self
defeating. You seem unable to make inferences in your argument. . .
what a layman would call “connecting the dots“. Hence your argument
wanders aimlessly around the NG. It is no wonder that you apologize
for your “choppy writing style” at your website.

After being asked several times how it can be that a non existent
court can make binding case law for you to use in your argument you
eventually realize your contradiction and start babbling about
“actors” in the court who you unwittingly say aren’t real either.

So you are in the same hole you were to start with.

Then in a stunning bit of mindless posting you destroy your own
argument by posting Blueberry River Indian Band v. Canada which
plainly describes the very real “source and fountain of justice
and. . .jurisdiction” in Canada and when read in full explains the
authority given judges, court officers and government officials.

Realizing you have backed yourself in a corner yet again you start
making up law and in a panic shout in all caps that these court
officers and government officials are actors playing out “formless
roles”.

Mind you, this is shouted just after having quoted the case law that
describes the real and tangible jurisdiction of the courts and its
officers!

You are a hopeless case, boy.

My suggestion to you, StaR, is that you enroll in a basic logic course
at the local community college (you’re on welfare, you can get it paid
for, eh?) and then have a competent adult read your posts before you
put them on this NG or your website.

...

read more »

Click to expand...

From a previous post....

LMAO as clearly articulated below, a constitution is an "instrument by
which the incorporation is made". It is a charter of INCORPORATION.

"Corporations are also of all grades, and made for varied objects; all
governments are corporations, created by usage and common consent, or
grants and charters which create a body politic for prescribed
purposes; but whether they are private, local or general, in their
objects, for the enjoyment of property, or the exercise of power, they
are all governed by the same rules of law, as to the construction and
the obligation of the instrument by which the incorporation is made."

"The federal government itself is but a corporation, created by the
grant or charter of the separate states;"
----------

And of course you denied that a corporation of ANY SORT was made
showing the readers just what a clueless IDIOT you are.

----------
"Nor do they form a corporation... they form a nation." - Quantrell
(aka Abbot aka Austin Rayder)

"Hence I repeat we, the people, form a nation, not a corporation..." -
Quantrell (aka Abbot aka Austin Rayder)

"The fact is Canada is not a corporation and you have never proven
that it is, except to give us interpretations of cases you can't
understand, and don't site properly." - Raider (aka Abbot)

"The Union of States was created by the U.S. Constitution and is not a
corporation." - Raider (aka Abbot)

"One need only to read the preamble to the Constitution to see that
the Framers were not creating either a public or private corporation.
They were creating "a more prefect union"." - Quantrell (aka Abbot aka
Austin Rayder)
----------

In the
case of the U.S. Constitution it is supreme law.

Click to expand...

"they are all governed by the same rules of law, as to the
construction and the obligation of the instrument by which the
incorporation is made."

As stated earlier, constitutions are charters of corporate powers,
nothing more, nothing less. It tells them what they can do and what
they can't do, nothing more, nothing less.They are not permitted to
act outside the terms of their constitution - such acts are deemed
"ultra vires" (beyond the power).

The "instrument by which the incorporation is made" (constitution) is
supreme law for the corporate entities ONLY, the federal corporation
and the granting states (corporations).

That alone makes it
more that "a fiction".

Click to expand...

LMAO you are such an IDIOT!!!!!!!!!

It is the "separate legal entity having its own rights, privileges,
and liabilities distinct from those of its members" that is PURE
FICTION!!!

----------
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition

cor-po-ra-tion

1. A body that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal
entity having its own rights, privileges, and liabilities distinct
from those of its members.

2. Such a body created for purposes of government. Also called body
corporate.
----------
37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

Tuesday, May 28, 2002

Professor Patrick Healy, professor of law at McGill University

" Well, your question goes directly to the heart of the issue. A
corporation is a fiction, by definition, and any attempt to construct
a model of criminal liability for a fiction will involve further
fictions. The question you ask is, where is the limit of the just
imposition of responsibility on these fictitious entities?.."
----------
Lennard's Carrying Co Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co Ltd 1915 AC 705

A corporation is a "fiction" as it has no separate existence, no
physical body and no "mind".
----------

In fact a corporation shares a common trait with you...IT HAS NO
MIND. LMFAO

The fact that one can read it, that one can quote it, that it empowers
government with limited authority and that the Court settles disputes
as to matters regarding constitutional law makes it very real.

----------
Blueberry River Indian Band v. Canada (Department of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development) (C.A.)

....The starting point for any discussion of the legal responsibility
of governmental actors is (or, at least was, until 1982) the
constitutional premise that the Sovereign is the source and fountain
of justice and that all jurisdiction is derived from her.

....All executive acts are done in her name or are done by Ministers of
the Crown acting under statutory powers conferred upon them.
----------

Governmental ACTORS

Readers, the men and women who are ACTING are real enough. The words
that they type or write (that I use) are real enough. The "role" or
"part" that they ACT OUT such as a "minister" or "judge" however are
fictitious, just ask any actor. The concept of an INVISIBLE IMMORTAL
ARTIFICIAL FORMLESS "being" or "entity" that they endorse is... well a
concept. It is PURE fiction as you and I know that there's no such
thing as an INVISIBLE IMMORTAL ARTIFICIAL FORMLESS "being" or
"entity". In fact, this INVISIBLE IMMORTAL ARTIFICIAL FORMLESS "being"
or "entity" can ONLY "act" and be "seen" through the ACTS of the
ACTORS who administer its affairs. Now if that doesn't show you the
fictitious nature of the ENTITY then I don't know what will.

END QUOTE

The ACTORS and the PROPS (constitution - piece of paper outlining a
concept) they use are real but the corporate entity is pure FICTION
which is why IT can ONLY act and be seen in the ACTS of those (actors)
who administer its affairs.

"Nations, or States, are denominated by publicists bodies politic; and
are said to have their affairs and interests, and to deliberate and
resolve in common. They thus become as moral persons, having an
understanding and will peculiar to themselves, and are susceptible of
obligations and laws. In this extensive sense, the United States may
be termed a corporation; they are a collective invisible body, which
can act and be seen only in the acts of those who administer the
affairs of the government . . .. It may be so said of each State
singly. So the
king of England is a corporation; and so is parliament."
----------

Hells bells, son, even you (mis)quote constitutional case law. . .then
you tell us the document is not real!

Click to expand...

The document is real idiot, it is the corporate entity that it creates
that is FICTION!!!

You are a contradictory mess, sonny!

Click to expand...

Bwahahahahahaha and you just showed everyone what a complete IDIOT you
are you old fool.

LMAO

Come see what this lying piece of shit is soooooooooooooo desperately
trying to hide from you!!!!

Abbot ) StaR, your disjointed posts are contradictory and self
defeating. You seem unable to make inferences in your argument. . .
what a layman would call “connecting the dots“. Hence your argument
wanders aimlessly around the NG. It is no wonder that you apologize
for your “choppy writing style” at your website.

After being asked several times how it can be that a non existent
court can make binding case law for you to use in your argument you
eventually realize your contradiction and start babbling about
“actors” in the court who you unwittingly say aren’t real either.

So you are in the same hole you were to start with.

Then in a stunning bit of mindless posting you destroy your own
argument by posting Blueberry River Indian Band v. Canada which
plainly describes the very real “source and fountain of justice
and. . .jurisdiction” in Canada and when read in full explains the
authority given judges, court officers and government officials.

Realizing you have backed yourself in a corner yet again you start
making up law and in a panic shout in all caps that these court
officers and government officials are actors playing out “formless
roles”.

Mind you, this is shouted just after having quoted the case law that
describes the real and tangible jurisdiction of the courts and its
officers!

Now trapped with nowhere to go in your argument you do what you do
best hurl insults and post reams of disconnected case law
quotes. . .all of which you say couldn’t be real in the first place.

You are a hopeless case, boy.

Again, my suggestion to you, StaR, is that you enroll in a basic logic
course at the local community college (you’re on welfare, you can get
it paid for, eh?) and then have a competent adult read your posts
before you put them on this NG or your website.

Abbot ) StaR, your disjointed posts are contradictory and self
defeating. You seem unable to make inferences in your argument. . .
what a layman would call “connecting the dots“. Hence your argument
wanders aimlessly around the NG. It is no wonder that you apologize
for your “choppy writing style” at your website.

After being asked several times how it can be that a non existent
court can make binding case law for you to use in your argument you
eventually realize your contradiction and start babbling about
“actors” in the court who you unwittingly say aren’t real either.

So you are in the same hole you were to start with.

Then in a stunning bit of mindless posting you destroy your own
argument by posting Blueberry River Indian Band v. Canada which
plainly describes the very real “source and fountain of justice
and. . .jurisdiction” in Canada and when read in full explains the
authority given judges, court officers and government officials.

Realizing you have backed yourself in a corner yet again you start
making up law and in a panic shout in all caps that these court
officers and government officials are actors playing out “formless
roles”.

Mind you, this is shouted just after having quoted the case law that
describes the real and tangible jurisdiction of the courts and its
officers!

Now trapped with nowhere to go in your argument you do what you do
best hurl insults and post reams of disconnected case law
quotes. . .all of which you say couldn’t be real in the first place.

You are a hopeless case, boy.

Again, my suggestion to you, StaR, is that you enroll in a basic logic
course at the local community college (you’re on welfare, you can get
it paid for, eh?) and then have a competent adult read your posts
before you put them on this NG or your website.

Click to expand...

From a previous post....

LMAO as clearly articulated below, a constitution is an "instrument by
which the incorporation is made". It is a charter of INCORPORATION.

"Corporations are also of all grades, and made for varied objects; all
governments are corporations, created by usage and common consent, or
grants and charters which create a body politic for prescribed
purposes; but whether they are private, local or general, in their
objects, for the enjoyment of property, or the exercise of power, they
are all governed by the same rules of law, as to the construction and
the obligation of the instrument by which the incorporation is made."

"The federal government itself is but a corporation, created by the
grant or charter of the separate states;"
----------

And of course you denied that a corporation of ANY SORT was made
showing the readers just what a clueless IDIOT you are.

----------
"Nor do they form a corporation... they form a nation." - Quantrell
(aka Abbot aka Austin Rayder)

"Hence I repeat we, the people, form a nation, not a corporation..." -
Quantrell (aka Abbot aka Austin Rayder)

"The fact is Canada is not a corporation and you have never proven
that it is, except to give us interpretations of cases you can't
understand, and don't site properly." - Raider (aka Abbot)

"The Union of States was created by the U.S. Constitution and is not a
corporation." - Raider (aka Abbot)

"One need only to read the preamble to the Constitution to see that
the Framers were not creating either a public or private corporation.
They were creating "a more prefect union"." - Quantrell (aka Abbot aka
Austin Rayder)
----------

In the
case of the U.S. Constitution it is supreme law.

Click to expand...

"they are all governed by the same rules of law, as to the
construction and the obligation of the instrument by which the
incorporation is made."

As stated earlier, constitutions are charters of corporate powers,
nothing more, nothing less. It tells them what they can do and what
they can't do, nothing more, nothing less.They are not permitted to
act outside the terms of their constitution - such acts are deemed
"ultra vires" (beyond the power).

The "instrument by which the incorporation is made" (constitution) is
supreme law for the corporate entities ONLY, the federal corporation
and the granting states (corporations).

That alone makes it
more that "a fiction".

Click to expand...

LMAO you are such an IDIOT!!!!!!!!!

It is the "separate legal entity having its own rights, privileges,
and liabilities distinct from those of its members" that is PURE
FICTION!!!

----------
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition

cor-po-ra-tion

1. A body that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal
entity having its own rights, privileges, and liabilities distinct
from those of its members.

2. Such a body created for purposes of government. Also called body
corporate.
----------
37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

Tuesday, May 28, 2002

Professor Patrick Healy, professor of law at McGill University

" Well, your question goes directly to the heart of the issue. A
corporation is a fiction, by definition, and any attempt to construct
a model of criminal liability for a fiction will involve further
fictions. The question you ask is, where is the limit of the just
imposition of responsibility on these fictitious entities?.."
----------
Lennard's Carrying Co Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co Ltd 1915 AC 705

A corporation is a "fiction" as it has no separate existence, no
physical body and no "mind".
----------

In fact a corporation shares a common trait with you...IT HAS NO
MIND. LMFAO

The fact that one can read it, that one can quote it, that it empowers
government with limited authority and that the Court settles disputes
as to matters regarding constitutional law makes it very real.

----------
Blueberry River Indian Band v. Canada (Department of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development) (C.A.)

....The starting point for any discussion of the legal responsibility
of governmental actors is (or, at least was, until 1982) the
constitutional premise that the Sovereign is the source and fountain
of justice and that all jurisdiction is derived from her.

....All executive acts are done in her name or are done by Ministers of
the Crown acting under statutory powers conferred upon them.
----------

Governmental ACTORS

Readers, the men and women who are ACTING are real enough. The words
that they type or write (that I use) are real enough. The "role" or
"part" that they ACT OUT such as a "minister" or "judge" however are
fictitious, just ask any actor. The concept of an INVISIBLE IMMORTAL
ARTIFICIAL FORMLESS "being" or "entity" that they endorse is... well a
concept. It is PURE fiction as you and I know that there's no such
thing as an INVISIBLE IMMORTAL ARTIFICIAL FORMLESS "being" or
"entity". In fact, this INVISIBLE IMMORTAL ARTIFICIAL FORMLESS "being"
or "entity" can ONLY "act" and be "seen" through the ACTS of the
ACTORS who administer its affairs. Now if that doesn't show you the
fictitious nature of the ENTITY then I don't know what will.

END QUOTE

The ACTORS and the PROPS (constitution - piece of paper outlining a
concept) they use are real but the corporate entity is pure FICTION
which is why IT can ONLY act and be seen in the ACTS of those (actors)
who administer its affairs.

"Nations, or States, are denominated by publicists bodies politic; and
are said to have their affairs and interests, and to deliberate and
resolve in common. They thus become as moral persons, having an
understanding and will peculiar to themselves, and are susceptible of
obligations and laws. In this extensive sense, the United States may
be termed a corporation; they are a collective invisible body, which
can act and be seen only in the acts of those who administer the
affairs of the government . . .. It may be so said of each State
singly. So the
king of England is a corporation; and so is parliament."
----------

Hells bells, son, even you (mis)quote constitutional case law. . .then
you tell us the document is not real!

Click to expand...

The document is real idiot, it is the corporate entity that it creates
that is FICTION!!!

You are a contradictory mess, sonny!

Click to expand...

Bwahahahahahaha and you just showed everyone what a complete IDIOT you
are you old fool.

LMAO

Come see what this lying piece of shit is soooooooooooooo desperately
trying to hide from you!!!!

Abbot ) StaR, your disjointed posts are contradictory and self
defeating. You seem unable to make inferences in your argument. . .
what a layman would call “connecting the dots“. Hence your argument
wanders aimlessly around the NG. It is no wonder that you apologize
for your “choppy writing style” at your website.

After being asked several times how it can be that a non existent
court

Click to expand...

Readers!!! lmao What can I say, he makes a great jester.

A "court" is also a FICTION better known as an 'incorporeal political
being' AKA a corporation. And like any corporate entity, required for
its existence are actors, and in this case, actors that will play the
part of "judge" and "clerk" and so on. These characters of course are
all part and parcel to the FICTION called an "incorporeal political
being" (court). The performance of these actors are mandated within a
public ACT and are "indicative of a design to perform the functions of
a court" that is, they are acting on behalf of the "incorporeal
political being".

----------
A LAW DICTIONARY

ADAPTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION

by John Bouvier

JUDGE. A public officer, lawfully appointed to decide litigated
questions according to law. This, in its most extensive sense,
includes all officers who are appointed to decide such questions, and
not only judges properly so called, but also justices of the peace,
and jurors, who are judges of the facts in issue. See 4 Dall. 229; 3
Yeates, IR. 300. In a more limited sense, the term judge signifies an
officer who is so named in his commission, and who presides in some
court.

COURT, practice. A court is an incorporeal political being, which
requires for its existence, the presence of the judges, or a competent
number of them, and a clerk or prothonotary, at the time during which,
and at the place where it is by law authorized to be held; and the
performance of some public act, indicative of a design to perform the
functions of a court.
----------

Abbot) I see you altered my post so as to esape the question, you tiny
little man.

Let's see it all again:

Abbot ) StaR, your disjointed posts are contradictory and self
defeating. You seem unable to make inferences in your argument. . .
what a layman would call “connecting the dots“. Hence your argument
wanders aimlessly around the NG. It is no wonder that you apologize
for your “choppy writing style” at your website.

After being asked several times how it can be that a non existent
court can make binding case law for you to use in your argument you
eventually realize your contradiction and start babbling about
“actors” in the court who you unwittingly say aren’t real either.

So you are in the same hole you were to start with.

Then in a stunning bit of mindless posting you destroy your own
argument by posting Blueberry River Indian Band v. Canada which
plainly describes the very real “source and fountain of justice
and. . .jurisdiction” in Canada and when read in full explains the
authority given judges, court officers and government officials.

Realizing you have backed yourself in a corner yet again you start
making up law and in a panic shout in all caps that these court
officers and government officials are actors playing out “formless
roles”.

Mind you, this is shouted just after having quoted the case law that
describes the real and tangible jurisdiction of the courts and its
officers!

Now trapped with nowhere to go in your argument you do what you do
best hurl insults and post reams of disconnected case law
quotes. . .all of which you say couldn’t be real in the first place.

Readers!!! lmao What can I say, he makes a great jester.

A "court" is also a FICTION better known as an 'incorporeal political
being' AKA a corporation. And like any corporate entity, required for
its existence are actors, and in this case, actors that will play the
part of "judge" and "clerk" and so on. These characters of course are
all part and parcel to the FICTION called an "incorporeal political
being" (court). The performance of these actors are mandated within a
public ACT and are "indicative of a design to perform the functions of
a court" that is, they are acting on behalf of the "incorporeal
political being".

Click to expand...

Abbot) So the question remains: How can a court be unreal and yet
provide binding case law for you to quote?

Welcome to Accountant Forums!

Welcome to the Accountant Forums, full of expert advice for accounting related topics.

Please join our friendly community by clicking the button below - it only takes a few seconds and is totally free. You'll be able to ask questions about accountancy, tax and audit or chat with the community and help others.
Ask a Question

Useful Searches

We are a forum for professional accountants and tax advisers to discuss accountancy and taxation, but we also welcome individuals and business users who have queries relating to these matters. More About Us...